Here are the highlights of that speech:
I opened by saying that while on my way to the event I was hungry, so I stopped to grab a bite at a Chick-fil-A.
The crowd roared.
I also talked about how easy it is to get lost in Seal Beach. In some places, it isn't just a matter of going around the block. I am figuring someone like Biden designed the thing.
Then I dove into the Supreme Court ruling regarding the Arizona Immigration Law.
Immigration is a concurrent issue, which means that both the federal government and the State governments, share authorities regarding the issue, much like a teacher and a school principal shares the authority of granting detentions. Once the illegal is inside the State, it is also a State issue. In fact, securing the border is also a concurrent issue because the border is not only a national border, but a State line as well.
To help them understand what is and isn't a concurrent issue, I explained how "naturalization," according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, is an exclusive issue that only the federal government has authority over.
I explained that the federal government in this immigration case is trying to use the Supremacy Clause as their argument, stating that since they refuse to enforce immigration laws, the States cannot act contrary. This stems from a major myth that we are taught even as children. The myth is that all federal laws trump all State laws. That is simply not true. Unconstitutional federal laws are illegal, and are null and void. Also, the executive branch is constitutionally bound to enforce the laws on the books, according to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, where it reads, "he [President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Immigration is not ignored by the Constitution, either. In Article I, Section 9, which many people believe to be obsolete because the slavery portion of that clause no longer applies, states that as of 1808 the federal government can pass laws prohibiting who can migrate into the United States. It does not say that the federal government can tell a State who they have to admit.
Even the filing of the court case was done in an unconstitutional manner. According to Article III, Section 2, in all cases were a State is a party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. That means that in all cases where a State is a party, the case must go directly to the Supreme Court. However, Holder filed the case at the circuit court. This means that either Holder does not understand that clause of the Constitution, or he does but doesn't care.
When it comes to the Affordable Health Care Act, the first question is if the federal government has the sweeping authorities to control health care that the law grants?
The originalist view of the Constitution says that there are no express powers granted to the federal government in regards to health care, so the law is unconstitutional.
My analysis of the ruling is simple. The Conservative Judges were right, Roberts was wrong, and the liberal justices are out of their minds.
The ideological influence reminds us that we have stopped being a nation of laws, and we have become a nation under the law of man.
Justice Roberts told us we got what we voted for, saying: "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their choices."
In other words, he called this nation a democracy, and completely disregarded the rule of law.
The will of the people is fin as long as it remains within the limitations provided by the law of the land. Otherwise, you simply have the tyranny of the majority - or maybe even the tyranny of the loudest and best funded.
Roberts, and the Conservative Judges, did decide that Obamacare was not constitutional through the Commerce Clause, and they were correct. The Commerce Clause, as debated during the Constitutional Convention, was supposed to be an authority for the federal government to be a mediator, or referee, between States when a conflict regarding commerce arose. The Commerce Clause was not originally intended to be a skeleton key for statists to unlock every big government action they can.
But Roberts did say the mandate was constitutional because the mandate penalty is a tax. . . which is not only an erroneous argument, and opens up the government to be able to do anything it wants as long as it applies a penalty and calls it a tax, but he also altered the law - and modification of law is a legislative power which solely belongs to Congress as per Article I, Section 1.
It is important to stop Obamacare quickly because of the FDR effect. The longer it is law, the more people may grow to accept the law.
I then spoke at length about the unconstitutionality of Judicial Review. The decision, like most, came down to a 5-4 decision. So the question is, "Do you think the Founding Fathers wanted a law that affects over 300 million people to lay on the shoulders of a single judge?"
We have been conditioned to believe that the federal court system is tasked with determining the constitutionality of laws. Laws are often challenged regarding their constitutionality, and inevitably these challenges wind up being decided by a federal court. The common belief is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution.
The problem is, there is no place in the U.S. Constitution that gives the courts that kind of authority.
The concept of Judicial Review was given to the federal courts in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803. He wrote that the federal court system has the power of judicial review. Rather than simply apply the law to the cases, Marshall had decided based on case law that the courts have the authority to determine the validity of the law as well.
One of the most obvious fundamental principles of the Constitution is the limitations it places on the federal government. The Constitution is designed not to tell the federal government what it can't do, but to offer enumerated powers to which the authorities of the federal government are limited to. The powers are granted by the States, and any additional authorities must also be granted by the States. The process by which this can be accomplished is through the amendment process. Remember, it takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment.
The power of Judicial Review, or the authority to determine if laws are constitutional, was not granted to the courts by the States in the Constitution. The courts took that power upon themselves through Justice Marshall's opinion of Marbury v. Madison.
The federal courts are a part of the federal government. The Constitution was designed to limit the authorities of the federal government by granting only a limited number of powers. Judicial Review enables the federal government, through the courts, to determine if the laws that the federal government made are constitutional. In other words, the federal government, through Judicial Review, can determine for itself what its own authorities are.
Do you think that is in line with the limiting principles the Founding Fathers originally set forth?
So, the idea that the federal courts, or the United States Supreme Court, has the authority to interpret the Constitution (and once you allow interpretation they will interpret to mean what best fits their agenda), and can decide if a law is constitutional or not, is unconstitutional. The States never granted the courts that power.
In reality, it goes even deeper, for the court case should have never been filed in the first place. The case was a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. The 26 States should have nullified. As the final arbiters of the Constitution, the States have the authority to ignore, and refuse to implement, unconstitutional laws.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment